Okeldokel. Curious thing to be exercised over if you're not a Hillary supporter, but to each his own.

In that case, all we can offer is, it's a huge, overblown, mostly manufactured distraction.

The Comet thinks the nation is bright enough to withstand even the most brutal manipulation by the Post-Gazette in not putting Hillary's name in bold enough typeface this morning.

The Comet also thinks the nation is far more concerned about who stands a realistic chance of reaching out to independents and moderate conservatives...

... who has a modest record of legislative accomplishment vs. who has naught but a sixteen year track record of overreaching and abject failure...

... who has shown they will cave in to the warmongering patriotism machine when it's politically expedient, and who will campaign (govern?) with an exclusive rather than an inclusive message when that also is politically expedient.

The polls show it -- right wing talk radio is admitting it -- BarackObama is to be avoided if you are a Republican. If the Comet was at all ambivalent before, that fact pretty much seals the deal.

10 comments:

Odd, and more than a little sad, that you should fail to see how a biased media, exerting its influence (either actively or by omission) on an often uninformed electorate is bad for the country and for the very idea of Democracy itself.

That you can not connect the media's free love for Obama to their free pass for Bush in 2000 is as depressing, and as maddening, as the views of gender feminists for whom "liberation" is nothing more than an overturning of the oppression.

Your moral relativism here -- as long as they're creaming over a Democrat, then it's fine by me! -- is stunning. Almost as stunning as your contention that calling bullshit on biased media coverage is somehow more of a distraction than the biased media coverage itself.

If you really want a sure and thoughtful discussion of issues, then you should not want an allegedly objective media basing on, nor cheerleading for, any of the candidates.

The not-quite-as-bright-as-you-think nation deserves at least that much, doesn't it?

More than adequate to convey the story of a candidate who won 2 out of 4 states, who gained a truly negligible amount of ground in the delegate count, and who is still facing a very uphill battle.

You compare that directly to a headline you say the P-G surely WOULD have run IF Obama had won all four states -- which by the way, would have given him the nomination outright, and merited as a big a headline as they could possibly manage.

More importantly, I simply do not acknowledge said media "creaming." Not one whit. To any extent that Obama does have a knack for earning trust and getting his message across -- those are good and useful qualities for a president to have, no? Provided you agree with him on policy and he or she is demonstrably not an utter moron -- which I think distinguishes this from the Bush 2000 situation.

Thank you Bram! Is it just us, or is everyone in the Burgosphere really sick of Chad's holier than though BS? Man that guy is an arrogant know it all! And for someone who calls himself a "wordsmith", he aint exactly the best writer.

I am quite sick of hearing complaints about "media bias" without any serious consideration given to the myriad non-political motivations of the media -- and most media bias is decidedly nonpolitical.

How do you distinguish covering actual events from "exerting influence?" Does your worldview lead you to believe that the media would not "cream itself" if Obama were, say, discovered to be having an affair with an intern? If so, you are sadly deluded. What the media wants, Chad, is a good story, and they'll trash whoever it takes to get it. John McCain storming back from the dead is a good story. Barack Obama winning 11 straight freakin' primaries is a great story. Would you have us believe that the media is actually responsible for those 11 straight wins? If so, to what do you attribute the independent thinkers in Ohio and Texas? Do they not have televisions? If your answer is "the recent scandals and the chinks in Obama's armor," then where do you think folks heard about said scandals and chinks?

Another common media bias is the "set 'em up to tear 'em down." Just wait and see how they treat Obama if he gets the nomination.

To use your words, "if you really want a sure and thoughtful discussion" about how the media works, then let's do that. But it's best to leave the emotions and allegiances aside.

In re gender feminism -- I've been wondering if it actually exists in this day and age, outside of the most liberal college campuses (about which we are being educated), or if it's sort of a straw woman.

Disclaimers

All views expressed in these posts and in my own comments are my own and my own alone, and do not reflect the views of any of my employers, clients, partners or patrons, past or present, real or imagined. Adding comments is a privilege, not a right. The blog author reserves the right not to publish or to remove comments for any reason, which most often will include obscenity, harassment, personal attacks, "outing" people, attempts to make the blog unpalatable to others, ASOIAF book spoilers, incessant semi-coherent rambling, and malicious and/or knowing falsehood. However, the blog author is under no obligation to do so in a timely manner or in any other manner whatsoever, and is in no way responsible for any comments written on this blog by other parties. Please fact-check everything you read relating to politics scrupulously, especially on the Internet and especially in blog comments and on message boards.